Basis in Law

[David Merrill]

Sorry the weekends are the only time I get to spend quality time with my twins. I do want to respond to all the posts here but it will take me some time. I really like this discussion, and the input from everyone here. The issue I am having is the position being taken, is using citations and theory detached from the codified tax law. I need to support this under the code. For those who don't think the code applies to you, that is another debate. I will have that with you if you want, but for purposes here, lets presume we are all under the code.

I promise to address all questions, I just need time. I do have a life outside tax, and forum debate. Feel free to carry on discussing, I will get back.

Let's just say, If I can validate this approach, I can write an opinion, and can use that to support an audit, but it has to be grounded in current tax law with specific code sections regulation and cases cited. While I am happy to her discussion on private credit, and the like, it isn't really applicable in a position paper, unless specific tax codes embody this theory. I need to be able to use the code, regs and case law, to make a clear and compelling case for this position, and this is what i am struggling with, as I can't find an appropriate exemption in the tax law....

more to follow I promise, keep up the discussion, it is very interesting. I am also thankful some here finally understand why a refund check is not proof enough. If you want to take this position and your income in in excess of 250k, you need support, as taking this position with that much income will trigger an audit, no question.

I will also add, I do have access to ex-IRS agents as resources, and am talking to them about this, but nothing positive so far.

Because of your presumption I do not think you will ever find what you are after except maybe after a few more years. I will show you the early rendition of making the demand:



If you want to believe that then we have seven-going on eight years.

I think the main gap if you will here is that I would never have understood this without developing through the Libel of Review and its history 'saving to suitors'. There is a diversity of citizenship and it boils down to whether you are in contract with the Fed or not; so your premise is keeping you from developing any understanding of American remedy. You only see the one citizenship and do not recognize any diversity.

I was a pal with one of the authors of Are You Lost at C? There is some very esoteric knowledge that is presented too. For example Jim was a financial advisor and sold his complete client portfolio on the eve of the 1997 Crash. (Well, let's call it a Slump.) This requires some knowledge of the Fibonacci Sequence and he was a 32 Degree Mason. So some of this all ties together with the presumption there is more to life than meets the eye.

It also relates to Spiritual Mind Treatments and Mental Equivalence. So this is truly law. Mental equivalence to me anyway is when your understanding of the law is the same as the actual law. So it even goes beyond simple law it is how you make use of law. If you learn to forgive, the law demands the universe take your order - take on your order - become of the same order as you - forgiving and it reciprocates like a mirror.

We are certainly all under the law.

Redeeming lawful money excludes you from the IRC, Title 26 of the USC which is not positive law. By reconciling the US note value with the Federal Reserve note (well, sort of) Congress was able to enact Title 31 into positive law. They had to fudge it though and it is catching up fast, the cover up. Cover ups never go away, they just build lies upon more lies. They fester. The federal judges getting this ruling that they get pay raises at the same rate the Dollar devalues from fractional lending, that is a Tell.

A second-year law student told me matter-of-factly, All common law is is case law. Stare decisis. So you will not find the case law authority you are looking for until somebody at the IRS or DoJ is stupid enough to try prosecuting somebody for redeeming lawful money who understands the precept that is spelled out in the legislative history of the Fed act, they lose at trial and appeal, and win on appeal. For the IRS and DoJ to be that clumsy for the two years that would take is just unrealistic to hope for.




Regards,

David Merrill.